DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pp. 10-11 of the REMARKS, filed on February 4, 2026, to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection has been asserted. See Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 for details.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0210799 to Robertson et al. (hereinafter, “Robertson”) in view of US 2022/0104102 to Amar et al. (hereinafter, “Amar”) in view of US 2020/0394573 to Chou (hereinafter, “Chou”) and in view of US 2017/0180433 to Gupta et al. (hereinafter, “Gupta”).
As per claim 1: Robertson discloses: A method, comprising (an access system performing steps of controlling access to structures [Robertson, ¶0016, 0053; Fig. 5]): detecting, by a first user device, a triggering condition for establishing a secure connection with a second (a wireless device 24 is detected withing range of an access node 50 [Robertson, ¶0054]); (“In the event that the access node 50 currently within range of the wireless device 24 is located near the user's assigned room (represented by structure 40) (or alternatively when access node 50 is programmatically authorized to permit access to the user's assigned room) access node 50 and wireless device 24 establish a connection and transmit information there between to confirm that wireless device 24 is authorized to access structure 40 (stage 504).” [Robertson, ¶0054]); receiving, by the first user device and from the second (“…the information transmitted between the wireless device 24 and the access node 50 in stage 502 is a unique identifier, such as a MAC address, or unique reservation ID…” [Robertson, ¶0055]); receiving, by the first user device and from a server device, a comparison result based at least in part on the server device comparing the first information item and a second information item comprising a subset of the identification information (the access node 50 utilizes this information to confirm the wireless device 24 is authorized by sending an authentication request to a server 60 and receiving a response [Robertson, ¶0057-0058]; wherein the server authenticates the information using a reservation information from a database [Robertson, ¶0028, 0033]); (in response to the confirmation, “access node 50 transmits a secure unlock key to the wireless device 24 which wireless device 24 may utilize to access structure 40 (stage 508).”; furthermore, a matching or associated secure authorization key is sent to a lock [Robertson, ¶0058] – in other words, the system “provision[s]”, or sets up, the secure unlock keys to be usable on unlocking locks).
Robertson does not explicitly disclose, but Amar discloses: establishing, by the first user device, a device cluster for secure connection between the first user device and the second user device based at least in part on the triggering condition being met (forming a cluster of devices connected to each other in a BLE network when determined they are within range, wherein secured communications are enabled after device authentication [Amar, ¶0048-0050, 0060, 0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to secure the connection disclosed in [Robertson, ¶0054] by forming a device cluster suggested in Amar. A secure connection would have prevented unauthorized access to the communications between the access node and wireless device in Robertson.
Robertson does not explicitly disclose receiving the secure lock key(s) from the server 60, such that the key(s) are subsequently transmitted. However, Chou discloses: receiving, by the first user device, a digital access asset from the server device based at least in part on the comparison result (when a user arrives at a hotel 20 where a wireless access point 211 is set up, the user connects to a hotel server 21 via the wireless access point to verify the user’s reservation in exchange for a digital key 231 provided to the wireless access point and then to the use for unlocking an electronic lock of a room [Chou, ¶0024-0025; Figs. 1 & 3]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the server in Robertson to distribute the secure lock keys to the access node(s) when a user is ready to check-in. This would have enhanced the security of the network by limiting key generation and/or storage to a centralized system.
Robertson does not describe the access nodes as (second) “user” devices. However, it was well-known in the field of networking for wireless user devices to act or serve as access points. In the BACKGROUND of Gupta, wireless client (“user”) devices have the capability of acting as access points, or hotspots [Gupta, ¶0005].
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate client/user devices as the access nodes in Robertson. According to [Robertson, ¶0029], access nodes can be mobile or fixed. A mobile access point, such as wireless user devices carried by employees, would have provided greater and more flexible network coverage throughout the hotel in Robertson.
As per claim 3: Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Robertson discloses: further comprising verifying the identity by transmitting the first information item to the server device, wherein the server device is configured to verify the identity based at least in part on the first information item and the second information item (the information transmitted from the wireless device 24 to the access node 50 includes a unique identifier [Robertson, ¶0055], which is provided to the server 60 as an authentication request to authenticate the wireless device [Robertson, ¶0033, 0056-0058]).
As per claim 6: Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta disclose all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Robertson discloses: wherein the triggering condition is based at least in part on a threshold proximity (when the wireless device is within range of the access node, wherein the access node has a zone defining a distance the user with the wireless device is from the access node to be acceptable [Robertson, ¶0050, 0054]).
As per claim 8: Claim 8 is different from overall scope of claim 1. Claim 8 is directed to a first user device with instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 1. Therefore, the response to claim 1 is also applicable to claim 8.
As per claim 10: Claim 10 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 10 is directed to a first user device with instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 3. Therefore, the response to claims 3 and 8 are also applicable to claim 10.
As per claim 13: Claim 13 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 13 is directed to a first user device with instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 6. Therefore, the response to claims 6 and 8 are also applicable to claim 13.
As per claim 15: Claim 15 is different from overall scope of claim 1. Claim 15 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 1. Therefore, the response to claim 1 is also applicable to claim 15.
As per claim 17: Claim 17 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 17 is directed to a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 3. Therefore, the response to claims 3 and 15 are also applicable to claim 17.
As per claim 20: Claim 20 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 20 is directed to a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 6. Therefore, the response to claims 6 and 15 are also applicable to claim 20.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, Gupta, and in further view of US 2013/0238371 to You (hereinafter, “You”).
As per claim 2: Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta disclose all limitations of claim 1. Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta do not explicitly disclose, but You discloses: wherein the method further comprises: receiving a third input to transmit the digital access asset to the second user device; and transmitting the digital access asset to the second user device based at least in part on the third input (a room key dispensing graphical interface is displayed on a touch screen to allow a person to select the number of keys to be dispensed [You, ¶0050]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a function to enable a user to interact with the access node of Robertson, wherein the system can be implemented as kiosks according to [Robertson, ¶0018], to determine the amount of secure unlock keys to be provided. Having the option to obtain multiple keys, whether provided in physical or digital forms, would have been desired for hotel rooms shared by multiple guests.
As per claim 5: Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta disclose all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating You in claim 2 is also applicable to claim 5. Therefore, Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, Gupta, and You disclose: wherein the method further comprises displaying the digital access asset based at least in part on the second input (displaying the room key on a touch screen [You, ¶0050]).
As per claim 9: Claim 9 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 9 is directed to a first user device with instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 2. Therefore, the response to claims 2 and 8 are also applicable to claim 9.
As per claim 12: Claim 12 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 12 is directed to a first user device with instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 5. Therefore, the response to claims 5 and 8 are also applicable to claim 12.
As per claim 16: Claim 16 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 16 is directed to a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 2. Therefore, the response to claims 2 and 15 are also applicable to claim 16.
As per claim 19: Claim 19 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 19 is directed to a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 5. Therefore, the response to claims 5 and 15 are also applicable to claim 19.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, Gupta and in further view of US 2023/0186177 to Desai et al. (hereinafter, “Desai”).
As per claim 4: Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta disclose all limitations of claim 1. Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta do not explicitly disclose, but Desai discloses: wherein the method further comprises displaying the second information item based at least in part on the verification (the registration data is presented on a kiosk after verifying the guest, wherein the registration data includes at least identification data of the guest and/or other identification information [Desai, ¶0031, 0033, 0034; Fig. 5(360)]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the information of the user of the wireless device after verifying the identity of the user in Robertson. This would have enabled the user to verify that the system has authenticated the correct user and confirm that the registration (e.g., the hotel reservation) information was also correct.
As per claim 11: Claim 11 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 11 is directed to a first user device with instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 4. Therefore, the response to claims 4 and 8 are also applicable to claim 11.
As per claim 18: Claim 18 incorporates all limitations of claim 15. Claim 18 is directed to a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 4. Therefore, the response to claims 4 and 15 are also applicable to claim 18.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, Gupta, and in further view of US 2011/0039494 to Shon et al. (hereinafter, “Shon”).
As per claim 7: Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta disclose all limitations of claim 1. Robertson in view of Amar, Chou, and Gupta do not explicitly disclose, but Shon discloses: wherein the method further comprises establishing the secure connection using a near field communication (NFC) protocol (a wireless network connection using near field communication is established between a mobile terminal and an electronic apparatus [Shon, ¶0014]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement NFC capabilities to the access node of Robertson to establish connections with the wireless devices. NFC was a well-known wireless protocol in the art with features of low power consumption and shorter operation ranges than most conventional short-range wireless protocols. A shorter range would have improved security by requiring a wireless device to be within a closer physical proximity to the access node(s).
As per claim 14: Claim 14 incorporates all limitations of claim 8. Claim 14 is directed to a first user device with instructions performing the same operations as the method of claim 7. Therefore, the response to claims 7 and 8 are also applicable to claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0385077: Providing secure multi-cast communications between a plurality of devices forming a cluster of devices connected to one another by a local network. See Abstract.
US 2021/0127249: A device cluster is formed to establish wireless data communications. See ¶0117.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JUNG KIM can be reached at 571-272-3804. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494